Distribution Theory in Marx and in Kalecki. 
OW- IQ70) 
Michal Kalecki very much shared the critical attitude of 
Marx in relation to the capitalist system. His reading of 
Marx in his student days strongly influenced his outlook. 
Moreover the starting point of his life-work in economics- 
'U&&Txh'C&*£' 
which paralleled and anticipated the work of Keynes - 
was the department scheme of Marx (Capital Vol II). 
Yet his views on distribution are widely different from 
those of Marx. In his view the surplus is formed on the 
markets of commodities and it is based on Hbiqax elements 
(trV. o,-opsC^ i } Cm TXtifa-u/S 
of monopoly, which are different in strength but basically 
ubiquitous in capitalism. 
By contrast Marx in his explanation of the surplus 
declines to take into account monopoly as a basic factor; 
his aim in the contrarary is to show that the surplus 
must arise (also) in an economy fully competitive on the 
markets for commodities. And, in the traditions of the 
classics to which he adhered in this respect, competiti/on 
implied free entry and free mobility of capital 
This after all was necessary to prove the equalisation of 
the profit rate which played such a large role in 
the theoretical arguments concerning the theory of value. 
Why should Marx have formulated his problem in this 
stringent way, making it harder to prove his case? 
I think the reasons are not far to seek: If he had rested 
his case to any extent on monopoly he would have risked 
erasing the dividing line between himself and a kind 
of radical liberal ideology which he did not share at all.